Trayvon Martin - Page 10

Skitrel · 2012-03-29, 11:14 PM

Trayvon's parents trademarked his name for merchandising.

http://www.newser.com/story/142752/t...e-slogans.html

Classy.

On another note, while everyone bitches about some kid a veteran killed in his own home falsely by a police home invasion called out for medical purposes with no officers charged at all is going to slide completely under the radar.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/2...RYxxZ8.twitter

Baneblade · 2012-03-29, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

It demonstrates that Zimmerman's injuries were superficial at best and that there's no way his life was actually in danger. Martin was a scrawny kid and Zimmerman is a stocky would-be police officer. Martin probably did hit him, but because Martin has girl-arms the best he managed to do was maybe bloody Zimmerman's nose. And for that, Zimmerman killed him.

The idea is to stop them before you actually get a chance to injure or kill you.

I for one don't plan to draw down on someone and wait till they break my arm to remove their skull from their neck.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-03-29, 11:57 PM

It may seem crass to trademark the name of your own dead child, except when you consider that it's primarily to stop other people frame profiting off it, which would be 100x worse. Come on, man; they even said that in the first sentence of the link you posted. Did you even read it?

As for the follow up, pointing out that the veteran's death isn't getting enough publicity isn't a criticism of the people rising up in support of Martin except insofar as to suggest that they should do that for everybody. Since you don't, that either makes you a hypocrite (if you think they should) or makes pointing it our rather crass and classless on your part, since you're propping up another tragedy to try and distract from this one, for ends I cannot begin to comprehend. If you don't like seeing people get up in arms about what appears to be the tragic killing of an innocent man made legal by a questionable law, all you need to do is nothing. Trying to guilt people into stopping, with no clear profit to gain from the exercise, just makes you seem like a creepily sociopath

See? Three paragraphs, well-thought out. Not a troll.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-03-30, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The idea is to stop them before you actually get a chance to injure or kill you.

I for one don't plan to draw down on someone and wait till they break my arm to remove their skull from their neck.

Are you suggesting that the moment to gun someone down is around the time where you think they might be considering hitting you? Makes me wonder how many people really, truly wish they actually did live in the Thunderdome.

Effective · 2012-03-30, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Firefly

We're talking about Westboro Traak, here. I can pretty much tell you what Captain Homophobe thinks: here's a black kid from the ghetto wearing ghetto clothes acting ghetto in the land of white folks, you know, gated communities with armed guards to keep the trash out. Probably out peeping through windows at our white daughters and entertaining lustful, sinful thoughts about despoiling the pride of white folks. And of course the black kid, being like all black kids, mouths off and acts like a gangsta thug to the poor white guy just doing his job as a member of the Community Watch. His posturing, frightening to innocent white folks, was incredibly threatening and warranted an armed, lethal response.

annndddd ./thread

Figment · 2012-03-30, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Is there a critical desk shortage?

Could be since they still have to pay us and the UK off after their bank crisis and us bailing them out.

They may have sold all their desks to Ikea.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-03-30, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Could be since they still have to pay us and the UK off after their bank crisis and us bailing them out.

They may have sold all their desks to Ikea.

So when one has a mighty need to headdesk, what do they do? There must be other surfaces to head___.

Skitrel · 2012-03-30, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

It may seem crass to trademark the name of your own dead child, except when you consider that it's primarily to stop other people frame profiting off it, which would be 100x worse. Come on, man; they even said that in the first sentence of the link you posted. Did you even read it?

Whether it's stated in the article is irrelevant to the act of trademarking and taking out two patents on his name. Time will tell, I'm more inclined to believe book deals, talkshow deals, magazine deals and a future movie of the event will happen. It may be innocent, it may not be, the point of the matter is that trademarking does absolutely nothing, one has to pursue and shut down things in order to stop others profiting, are they going to spend an inordinate amount of money to do that? I sincerely doubt it.

Not to mention the fact that it's a trademark... If they don't use it, they lose it, that's just how trademarks work.

As for the follow up, pointing out that the veteran's death isn't getting enough publicity isn't a criticism of the people rising up in support of Martin except insofar as to suggest that they should do that for everybody. Since you don't, that either makes you a hypocrite (if you think they should) or makes pointing it our rather crass and classless on your part, since you're propping up another tragedy to try and distract from this one, for ends I cannot begin to comprehend. Trying to guilt people into stopping, with no clear profit to gain from the exercise, just makes you seem like a creepily sociopath

See? Three paragraphs, well-thought out. Not a troll.

At which point did I criticize the people standing up for Martin? Don't put words where they weren't said. The criticism is of greater injustices occurring, a failure of a corrupt police nation, and the failure of your media to publicise such injustices.

If you don't like seeing people get up in arms about what appears to be the tragic killing of an innocent man made legal by a questionable law, all you need to do is nothing.

Once again, do not place words in someone's mouth when they have not stated it.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-03-30, 08:40 AM

My media?

Man, and I'm not even making any money off of it.

Anyway, what makes me leery is this:

Whether it's stated in the article is irrelevant to the act of trademarking and taking out two patents on his name. Time will tell, I'm more inclined to believe book deals, talkshow deals, magazine deals and a future movie of the event will happen. It may be innocent, it may not be[...]

It may be innocent? It may not be? First of all, I fail to understand how it's even a significant thing to point out. Even if we indeed lived in an alternate reality where grieving parents saw the death of their child as a profit-enabled opportunity, it would mean absolutely nothing about whether or not the Martin shooting was a terrible tragedy, or that the law that prevented Zimmermen from even being investigated is an unjust law with dangerous implications.

The only reason I can imagine even bothering to bring it up, and then make the mental leap to the idea that it -may be possible- that the parents are going to try and profit off of it, would be to distract people from the issue or to try and lessen its impact. And why do that? Why indeed. Therein we find some really uncomfortable implications about your motives. I have a hard time believing yours are so innocent. Unless there's something I'm missing?

Perhaps the question I'd need clarification on is, so what if they did try to profit off it? What if they wanted to make a Trayvon Martin theme park? Please tell me how that would have anything to do with the a) tragedy of his untimely death, or b) the just or unjust nature of the law that protects his killer.

Skitrel · 2012-03-30, 10:46 AM

[quote=ItsTheSheppy;666874]My media?

Man, and I'm not even making any money off of it.

Anyway, what makes me leery is this:

It may be innocent? It may not be? First of all, I fail to understand how it's even a significant thing to point out. Even if we indeed lived in an alternate reality where grieving parents saw the death of their child as a profit-enabled opportunity, it would mean absolutely nothing about whether or not the Martin shooting was a terrible tragedy, or that the law that prevented Zimmermen from even being investigated is an unjust law with dangerous implications.

The only reason I can imagine even bothering to bring it up, and then make the mental leap to the idea that it -may be possible- that the parents are going to try and profit off of it, would be to distract people from the issue or to try and lessen its impact. And why do that? Why indeed. Therein we find some really uncomfortable implications about your motives. I have a hard time believing yours are so innocent. Unless there's something I'm missing?

Perhaps the question I'd need clarification on is, so what if they did try to profit off it? What if they wanted to make a Trayvon Martin theme park? Please tell me how that would have anything to do with the a) tragedy of his untimely death, or b) the just or unjust nature of the law that protects his killer.

See, here's the rub, I made absolutely no comments about whether his killing was just or unjust and I don't intend. My opinion is invalid as is everybody else's, the only thing that matters are the facts, and none of us are in possession of the facts, therefore none of us are qualified to make any judgements at all.

You seek to find motive in my posting of it, but there is no need for motive at all other than adding relevant information to the topic. The topic is Trayvon Martin, his parents have filed for trademarks and patents, I added that information to the topic as it wasn't here yer. You'll notice that I've participated nowhere else in the topic and intend to not participate in any way with regards to subjective nonsense in regards to a crime that absolutely none of us have a complete picture of.

As for "your media", yes, your media. They're not my media, I'm not American, in fact I come from a country where this shit, for the most part, rarely happens in the slightest, in fact we're the highest rated country in the world on equality too. Do stop with the conspiracy talk.

Anyway, I'm out again, the only point was adding something relevant to topic that wasn't here yet. You'd do well not to attack people with accusatory remarks of negative motives to undermine a movement for justice (on a tiny gaming forum? Yeah sure, that's going to make an impact...) simply because someone has posted something that can be reflected negatively. It's relevant information, so I posted it.

Peace.

Warborn · 2012-03-30, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The idea is to stop them before you actually get a chance to injure or kill you.

I for one don't plan to draw down on someone and wait till they break my arm to remove their skull from their neck.

Yes, I'm sure the 250 lb Zimmerman had to worry about the 140 lb Martin breaking his arm and removing his skull. You can tell by how horribly Zimmerman was beaten by Martin cold-clocking him and then jumping on top of him to pummel his head for an extended period of time. Look at all that blood. The bruises. The lacerations. Or look at Martin's hands, which the funeral director who prepared him said had no signs of having been used for punching (no cuts or bruises on the knuckles).

Clearly the reasonable thing to do was shoot him, even if we accept Zimmerman's bullshit claim that Martin vanished into thin air and then jumped him when he was heading back to his truck.

Baneblade · 2012-03-30, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Are you suggesting that the moment to gun someone down is around the time where you think they might be considering hitting you? Makes me wonder how many people really, truly wish they actually did live in the Thunderdome.

You will know when lethal force may be necessary. Your statement tells me you've never been in a life or death conflict situation.

Originally Posted by Warborn

Yes, I'm sure the 250 lb Zimmerman had to worry about the 140 lb Martin breaking his arm and removing his skull. You can tell by how horribly Zimmerman was beaten by Martin cold-clocking him and then jumping on top of him to pummel his head for an extended period of time. Look at all that blood. The bruises. The lacerations. Or look at Martin's hands, which the funeral director who prepared him said had no signs of having been used for punching (no cuts or bruises on the knuckles).

Clearly the reasonable thing to do was shoot him, even if we accept Zimmerman's bullshit claim that Martin vanished into thin air and then jumped him when he was heading back to his truck.

I don't pretend to know what happened, I'm simply sharing important information with those who clearly need some.

Off topic, I think your name should be changed to something less... innaccurate.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-03-30, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

You will know when lethal force may be necessary. Your statement tells me you've never been in a life or death conflict situation.

Yes, because that makes any difference.

To be honest, I'd be a TERRIBLE judge of when it's necessary, for just that reason. I can't see how being put in that situation would make me any better of a judge, just for having gone through it. It's like saying I'd be a good chef, because I stood in a kitchen.

This is why we have trained people, whose job it is to know these things. They're called police officers. I'm okay with them walking around at night, armed, keeping an eye on people. They tend to average somewhat lower on the "killing innocent people" scale. They're not perfect, because nobody is, but at least we can adjust our chances.

Unfortunately, if I want to go buy a gun, I'm not aware of any weeks-long training regimens I need to attend. I'm pretty sure the state just checks to see if I'm a) insane, or b) a felon. And if not, then score! I'm a walking, talking death-dealer, and your life may or may not be subject to my completely untrained judgement. and thanks to laws that permit me to carry my weapon concealed, you may not even know! You'll just have to assume. SUSPECT EVERYBODY.

All I need to hope if I kill someone is that a) they're good and dead so their story can't contradict mine, and b) my self defense claim is convincing enough to sound legit, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, c) there aren't any direct witnesses at the time to contradict me either. It's a 1-2-3 recipe for getting away with murder! In Florida. And Illinois. And Kentucky. Montana. North Carolina. Oklahoma. Texas (because OF COURSE). Utah. Washington. West Virginia.

Not New Hampshire, though... yet! We'll jump on that 'legalize murder' bandwagon soon, just as soon as this inconvenient "teenager gunned down in own neighborhood by overzealous vigilante" business works its way to the back pages.

Figment · 2012-03-30, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

You will know when lethal force may be necessary. Your statement tells me you've never been in a life or death conflict situation.

May, not is, being the key here: you just don't know. If you are paranoid, stressed, full of adrenaline, prejudiced with fear, anxious, intoxicated or otherwise mentally influenced, your judgement may well be influenced.

But hey, overreacting is simply impossible, isn't it? Nobody ever overreacts to anything. Sorry, but I find the people in this thread jumping to the defense of Zimmerman rather premature and I expect they act (as some indicated) out of the motivation to protect their own right to fire at potential criminals and the potential consequences that come from that. See, I can imagine one claims that it is possible the guy acted in such and such way, but even then one would expect an investigation and apprehension of the suspect first awaiting trial.

If your sister got shot and the person who did so said "well she was about to scratch my eyeballs out so I had to defend myself" and they'd say "oh well, okay then", then you'd want to at the very least see this guy quaranteened and the case investigated properly. At the very least you'd expect bail in awaiting of trial. That's the basics of your freedoms being protected from others being arbitrary judge juries and executioners in one.

So I find this a bit bold statement. Especially when - as Sheppy indicated - you have not received any training in handling aggression or self defense. Grabbing a gun is easy, not the best way and certainly should not be the default method of defense.

Considering the guy was unarmed and rather scrawny... I doubt that it was needed for Zimmerman to shoot him and that he could have simply been very hasty and somewhat prejudiced in his judgement is very likely to me, especially given the phonecall: he was intended to stop the guy somehow before he even got jumped. Maybe he got caught up in the moment, maybe he made the threat seem bigger to himself because he expected it. Maybe, just maybe, Zimmerman did not have any reason to fire and maybe, just maybe, the teen was the one who acted out of fear for his life when he was stalked by a guy carrying a gun.

Seems to me some don't even consider the perspective of the boy, who did not know who Zimmerman was. For all we know he thought he was being mugged.

Baneblade · 2012-03-30, 12:58 PM

There is a definitive moment when you know your life is in danger regardless of training, and that is when lethal force is something you have already chosen to use... assuming you don't try flight first.

Being trained or not really doesn't define a life and death scenario where you are forced to resort to self defense. All training does is make it easier for you to do something under stress, that is what it is for.

Side note: Even hinting that I'm taking Zimmerman or Martin's 'side' is just a sign of stupidity, when I neither claimed nor inferred any such thing. I, again, am not in a position to judge what happened and I refuse to be sensationalized.